Quran VS Bible , a thoroughly comparative study,arranged by items

**Al-manar** · 05-03-2010

Peace

The following comparative study is the harvest of my personal reflection on the two books that are believed by about half of the population of the world to be God's inspired word.....

the study is throughly ,would be by topics (items),and the focus would be mostly on the textual disagreements ...

Item :1

Adam

A- Unlike the Quran that views Adam as been taught the names of everything by God, the bible would view Adam as the one who chose the names of the creatures !

Genesis 2:19 Now the LORD God had formed out of the ground all the beasts of the field and all the birds of the air. He brought them to the man to see what he would name them; and whatever the man called each living creature, that was its name. 20 So the man gave names to all the livestock, the birds of the air and all the beasts of the field.
He taught Adam all the names of everything. ( Quran 2:31).

B- according to the bible Adam and his wife were both naked, and they felt no shame, according to the Quran when they disobeyed they became naked and felt ashamed

Genesis 2:25 The man and his wife were both naked, and they felt no shame.

Holy Quran 20:121 In the result, they both ate of the tree, and so their nakedness appeared to them: they began to sew together, for their covering, leaves from the Garden: thus did Adam disobey his Lord, and allow himself to be seduced.

c - The seductive argument of Satan in the Quranic narrative is that God prohibited the tree for not giving the chance to Adam and Eve to be in higher ranks as angels or eteranal beings ....,while the bible would view Satan as mere repeating the words of God seeing the the prohibition if they eat it their eyes will be opened, and they will be like God, knowing good and evil."

D- Man is better than the Angels?

Though the fact that Angels bowed to Adam in respect ,and God taught him the names that the Angels were ignorant of ,it seems Adam felt himself inferior to the angels ,and been seduced by Satan who would argue that the tree would make Adam and his wife Angels etc....

The bible too ... Psalm 8:4 what is man that you are mindful of him, the son of man that you care for him? 5 You made him a little lower than the heavenly beings and crowned him with glory and honor.

TILL NEXT ITEM ..........

PEACE

**gmcbroom** · 01-18-2011

The Vales Lily,
I disagree, beliefs are a matter of faith. You either have it or you don't.
Peace be with you
gmcbroom

**Hiroshi** · 01-18-2011

Originally Posted by naidamar

you dont even have the original gospels to begin with, and you dont have oral tradition where everything is recorded and memorised, so how do you make certain that gospels that you have now is 100% record of jesus (as) sayings and actions without any embellishments?

also, if you have no problem with all those thousands versions of bible, why were jehova witness founders NOT happy with KJV, and proceeded to make his own versions?
Clearly, even your founders thought that bible has been corrupted.

Surah 7:157 says that the Gospel and Torah are "with them" (Jews and Christians). What writings they had at that time, at the rise of Islam, are the same as what we have today.

Many Bible translators are influenced by their own pre-conceived doctrines and beliefs. Also, the NT of the KJV is based on just a few manuscripts of only slight authority as well as being written in an archaic style of English that no one understands today. But JWs have spent more than a century intensely studying the languages and original writings of the scriptures. And the Bible's message is not unclear. Our aim is to present it will absolute accuracy.

**Hiroshi** · 01-18-2011

Originally Posted by Yahya Sulaiman

From one of my articles:

What I’m going to point out here is a series of verses with their text notes from the New Living Translation of the Bible, Gift & Award edition...

“However, no one knows the day or the hour when these things will happen, not even the angels in heaven or the Son himself. Only the Father knows." (Matthew 24:36)

Some manuscripts omit the phrase “or the Son himself.”

My belief is that trinitarians were worried by those words and deliberately omitted them. The inclusion of the words "or the Son himself" is well supported by the best and most ancient mss and also agrees with Mark 13:32.

Originally Posted by Yahya Sulaiman

From one of my articles:

"Here begins the Good News about Jesus the Messiah, the son of God." (Mark 1:1)

Some manuscripts do not include “the son of God.”

Most of my modern Bibles do not include this phrase. Likely it should be omitted. Many versions that include it carry a footnote to say that it is not included in all the mss.

Originally Posted by Yahya Sulaiman

“I saw this happen to Jesus, so I testify that he is the Son of God.” (John 1:34)

Some manuscripts read “the chosen One of God.”

"Jesus learned that the Pharisees had heard, Jesus is baptizing and making more disciples than John.'” (John 4:1)

Some manuscripts read “The Lord.”...

"Then Jesus led them to Bethany, and lifting his hands to heaven, he blessed them. While he was blessing them, he left them and was taken up to heaven. They worshiped him and then returned to Jerusalem filled with great joy. And they spent all of their time in the Temple praising God." (Luke 24:50-53)

Some manuscripts do not include “and was taken up to heaven”. Some manuscripts do not include “worshiped him and”.

"The women fled from the tomb, trembling and bewildered, saying nothing to anyone because they were too frightened to talk.”

The most reliable early manuscripts conclude the Gospel of Mark at verse 8. Other manuscripts include various endings to the Gospel. Two of the more noteworthy endings are printed here.

Of these other examples the conclusion to Mark's Gospel is obviously spurious and need not be considered. The "worship" of Jesus refers to obeisance (as in many other places) rather than to relligious worship of God. And there is just some disagreement about whether a particular title or designation, which occurs elsewhere, should be applied to Jesus in a particular verse. Why should these cause a serious problem?

**Hiroshi** · 01-18-2011

Originally Posted by Woodrow

It is ironic that the JWs who are one of the most outspoken groups against Catholicism, base their belief on works preserved by the Catholic Church. How do you fix a broken clock, when you do not have the original clock to see how it is supposed to be?

That bothered me for a time. But although the Catholic Church did preserve these works they also jealously kept them out of sight from others and persecuted and burned at the stake anyone who tried to teach or translate the Bible. It was more of a case of Catholicism preventing access to the scriptures.

Originally Posted by Woodrow

The changes in the Torah are probably the most subtle and took place over afew thousand years. In my opinion most of those occured as a change in language as Hebrew ceased to be a spoken language and used only in the synagogues. At that point the Torah became what it was interpreted to mean. There is considerable difference between how Christians and Jews interpret the Torah. Either one or both interpretations are in error.

Well, the Jewish copyists exercised the utmost care in their work, even counting the number of letters that were written. In the Dead Sea scroll of Isaiah, more than 1,000 years older than the Masoretic text, only minor differences were found, mostly in spelling.

Originally Posted by Woodrow

As for the gnostic books, I do agree there were very many false books that were presented as being true Gospels. However no matter what sources you use it does appear the Gospels of Thomas, Peter and Bartholomew do seem to have been legitimate and were accepted as true until the time of the First Council. So the question remains as to how valid was the Council of Nicea and how did the Vatican determine what should be removed.

I need to research about those apocryphal gospels and get back to you.

**جوري** · 01-18-2011

Originally Posted by gmcbroom

The Vales Lily, I disagree, beliefs are a matter of faith. You either have it or you don't. Peace be with you gmcbroom

Beliefs should be based on common sense.. otherwise why not kneel before ganesh or Zeus? Essentially Christianity shares the same polytheistic foundation and you're basically helpless to defend it because it is a matter of 'faith' Hindus have faith too, so do Zoroastrians.. something to think about!

all the best

**Al-manar** · 01-18-2011

Originally Posted by Hiroshi

I didn't come to accept the Bible as reliable and truthful simply by studying manuscripts and textual transmission. I came to realise that the Bible is a book of prophecy and could only have come from God who knows what the future will bring. .

I agree that the bible has lots of prophecies ,yet dozens of them are either imaginary ,unfulfilled (I have just exposed one example of them in the post about john the baptist)......

we are about to discuss the messianic prophecies in details .. and show you that the reason you believe in the bible as trustworthy (claim of prophecy fullfilment) is the same exact reason for me to believe the bible as untrustworthy (imaginary ,failed prophecies)..... logic tells ,false imaginary prophecies can't be inspired by God !..

**Ramadhan** · 01-18-2011

Originally Posted by Hiroshi

Surah 7:157 says that the Gospel and Torah are "with them" (Jews and Christians). What writings they had at that time, at the rise of Islam, are the same as what we have today.

you have asked about this verse few times before and been given plenty of explanations from the tafseer.
Could you read those again and explain why do you not agree with them.

Originally Posted by Hiroshi

Many Bible translators are influenced by their own pre-conceived doctrines and beliefs.

So, which ones are those translators?
do christians have some standards?
Or is bible free to be interpreted based on every scribes' pre-conceived doctrines and beliefs?
Does this mean also that there is high possibility that the early translators got it wrong, say from the original gospel of jesus (which should be in hebrew or aramaic) to koine greek?

Originally Posted by Hiroshi

Also, the NT of the KJV is based on just a few manuscripts of only slight authority as well as being written in an archaic style of English that no one understands today

so, does this mean that bible needs to be updated all the time according to the current trend and understanding?
because thats what it seems to be the case.

Originally Posted by Hiroshi

But JWs have spent more than a century intensely studying the languages and original writings of the scriptures.

everyone knows that there is no such thing as original writings of bible.
even christians do not agree which books should be included in the bible.
Jesus (as) was likely to have spoken either hebrew or aramaic to his disciple, and none of the four gospels in the bible is written in the language.
Also, I heard that NIV is pretty good and based on a much more thorough research than NWT, so why won't JWs discontinue the use of NWT and replace it with NIV which is more modern?

As has been repeatedly said before, how do you fix each new subsequent versions of bible when you have no originals to begin with?

And I predict that there will always be attempts to make new versions of bible as later generations will not be satisfied with the previous versions of bible.
When each generations "attempt" to make the newer versions more "accurate", it is when bible will get further and further from the orginals that do not exist.

**IAmZamzam** · 01-18-2011

Hiroshi, you are missing the forest for the trees. There are a ton of alternate verses out there disagreeing over designations and statements most Christians consider a reference to Jesus's (P) divinity. This doesn't bother you? It's proof that, contrary to what you said before, the text is corrupted, and over some very important issues. Nor are those the only example I could give you.

**gmcbroom** · 01-18-2011

Yahya Sulaiman,
You say that there are tons of alternative verses out there disagreeing with statements over Jesus's divintiy. Care to name or post a few?
Peace be with you
gmcbroom

**IAmZamzam** · 01-18-2011

What I said is that there are tons of other textual variants in addition to the ones I've already listed, some over very important things. I didn't say they were all over Jesus's (P) divinity. The ones I've cited should suffice for that.

**YusufNoor** · 01-18-2011

Originally Posted by Hiroshi

That bothered me for a time. But although the Catholic Church did preserve these works they also jealously kept them out of sight from others and persecuted and burned at the stake anyone who tried to teach or translate the Bible. It was more of a case of Catholicism preventing access to the scriptures.

Well, the Jewish copyists exercised the utmost care in their work, even counting the number of letters that were written. In the Dead Sea scroll of Isaiah, more than 1,000 years older than the Masoretic text, only minor differences were found, mostly in spelling.

I need to research about those apocryphal gospels and get back to you.

just to make a point or 2:

Isaiah is NOT part of the Torah! it was one of the latest Scrolls of the Neve'im to be completed [albeit with 3 different authors]. the collective works of Ezra and Nehemiah are the bulk of the last [which of course differs depending how you date Daniel] of the Ketiv'um.

that being said, one cannot say the because Isaiah in pretty close to the same, that also holds true for the Torah, they are different scrolls.

in his version of the documentary hypothesis, Professor Richard Elliott Friedman points to Jeremiah's scribe Baruch as the "Deuteronomist" and Ezra as being the final editor of the Torah. this would put the final "changes" in the Torah in the 5th Century BCE. Friedman is a Professor of Hebrew and he dates the "Priestly" additions much earlier than Wellhausen, who based his decision on purely theological reasons. Friedman uses theological as well as linguistic properties of the text.

the "minimalist" or 1 author theory on Genesis, championed by Professor Gary A Rendsburg of Rutgers puts the text just prior to 1000 BCE. Scholarship thus puts the Torah, as we know it today, AT LEAST 2 to 3 hundred years AFTER the time of Moses, PBUH. the Torah of today is NOT the "Torah" of Mose, PBUH. ADDITIONALLY the "Torah" in the time of Moses, PBUH, referred to the LAW given to him and NOT the 5 Books containing stories about him, and earlier times.

if i may say a word about the Council of Nicea, PLEASE forget all the misconceptions and folklore we have all been taught about it INCLUDING the development of the "canon" of the Bible. let me quote from this website:

In Dan Brown's The Da Vinci Code, Constantine collated an entirely new Bible at the Council of Nicea, containing only books that speak of Jesus as divine. All books that portrayed him as human were burned.

true or false?

False. While it is true that the development of the Bible was a historical process that took centuries, Constantine had nothing to do with it and the Council of Nicea did not discuss it.

http://www.religionfacts.com/da_vinci_code/nicea.htm

please seek out and read: Truth and Fiction in The Da Vinci Code: A Historian Reveals What We Really Know about Jesus, Mary Magdalene, and Constantine by Bart D Ehrman.
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg...ance/beliefnet

whilst i disagree with a few of Prof Ehrman's conclusions, we could ALL do with a "fresher" outlook of the proceedings. i KNOW i had to give up some preconceived notions the reality of the situation is not readily apparent to most. the more we strive for a Scholarly outlook of history, the better the Truth can be revealed, In Sha'a Allah!

you may return to your regularly scheduled programming!

**Hiroshi** · 01-19-2011

Originally Posted by Woodrow

The Council of Nicea in 325 and the removal of many books from both the OT and NT as being gnostic and/or apocryphal

Actually, I don't believe that any such action was taken in 325. Where did you read that this took place? Do you have any references to historical records concerning this?

**Hiroshi** · 01-19-2011

Originally Posted by YusufNoor

If i may say a word about the Council of Nicea, PLEASE forget all the misconceptions and folklore we have all been taught about it INCLUDING the development of the "canon" of the Bible. let me quote from this website:

In Dan Brown's The Da Vinci Code, Constantine collated an entirely new Bible at the Council of Nicea, containing only books that speak of Jesus as divine. All books that portrayed him as human were burned.

true or false?

False. While it is true that the development of the Bible was a historical process that took centuries, Constantine had nothing to do with it and the Council of Nicea did not discuss it.

Does this support what I just said in my last post?

**Hiroshi** · 01-19-2011

Originally Posted by naidamar

you have asked about this verse few times before and been given plenty of explanations from the tafseer.
Could you read those again and explain why do you not agree with them.

Blame an old man's memory. Did the tafseer say that the Torah and Injil were not with the Jews and Christians?

**Ramadhan** · 01-19-2011

Originally Posted by Hiroshi

Blame an old man's memory. Did the tafseer say that the Torah and Injil were not with the Jews and Christians?

You have asked this before a few times. You seem to be in the same mould of other run-of-the-mills evangelists who have no problems lying whenever having to defend the house built on sand that is christianity and bible. Just a few posts ago you even claimed that christians have the "writings of original scriptures" which is such a blatant lie, and to make it worse, it's silly to do it on this forum where we can easily point you towards the truth.

Here's an example of your prior "query" on the verse, and I hope this time you will remember it:

http://www.islamicboard.com/comparat...about-145.html

Originally Posted by Hiroshi

Peace Woodrow.

Thank you for addressing my question. But Surah 7:157 (Pickthall) reads: "Those who follow the messenger, the Prophet who can neither read nor write, whom they will find described in the Torah and the Gospel [or: "Injil"] (which are) with them." Now those ones alluded to here must include Christians who embraced Islam at a time when they had the Injil "with them". If this is so, then the scriptures that were available at the time of the rise of Islam must be the Injil as defined by the Qur'an. And we have those same scriptures translated into our Bibles today.

Originally Posted by Woodrow

It is not only possible but probable that some Christians did retain the Injil until at least the time of Muhammad(PBUH) We do know one of his uncles ( I believeit was an Uncle) was Christian and he had considerable respect for him. It is also known that on at least one occasion Christians in the region were permitted to hold their worship in a Mosque.It seems that at least those Christians still had the Injil

But, that does not mean all who called themselves Christian were following the Injil. It does seem that the Christians in Greece were following something different than what some of the other Christians were following, if you look at the differences of some of the older denominations that still exist today such as the Coptics, Nazarenes and Sabians. They differ so much that some Christians of today do not view them as being Christian. What is in todays Bible was determined by the Council of Nicea in the year 325. It is probable it had not been accepted by Christians outside Catholicism until centuries later.

So I agree that the Injil was retained until it was fully replaced by the Catholic Bible determined by the Council of Nicea. Which is today's bible with the exception of the KJV which removed 7 books that the council approved.

**Hiroshi** · 01-20-2011

Originally Posted by naidamar

You have asked this before a few times. You seem to be in the same mould of other run-of-the-mills evangelists who have no problems lying whenever having to defend the house built on sand that is christianity and bible. Just a few posts ago you even claimed that christians have the "writings of original scriptures" which is such a blatant lie, and to make it worse, it's silly to do it on this forum where we can easily point you towards the truth.

Here's an example of your prior "query" on the verse, and I hope this time you will remember it:

http://www.islamicboard.com/comparat...about-145.html

Thank you for the link but what should I be looking at here? I can't see any posts from me or replies to me.

Originally Posted by naidamar

Originally Posted by Woodrow
It is not only possible but probable that some Christians did retain the Injil until at least the time of Muhammad(PBUH) We do know one of his uncles ( I believeit was an Uncle) was Christian and he had considerable respect for him. It is also known that on at least one occasion Christians in the region were permitted to hold their worship in a Mosque.It seems that at least those Christians still had the Injil

But, that does not mean all who called themselves Christian were following the Injil.

No they were not as you rightly say. There were false ideas and irresponsible men "twisting" the meaning of the scriptures even in the time of Peter and Paul (2 Peter 15-17). After centuries of time and worldly influence, Christianity had become rife with divisions and false teachings.

Originally Posted by naidamar

It does seem that the Christians in Greece were following something different than what some of the other Christians were following, if you look at the differences of some of the older denominations that still exist today such as the Coptics, Nazarenes and Sabians. They differ so much that some Christians of today do not view them as being Christian.

This doesn't necessarily mean that they had a different Injil. It just means that they were twisting the scriptures or ignoring certain parts. If you can show any writings that they had which are claimed to be the true Injil quite apart from what is in our NT then we could examine that and investigate further.

Originally Posted by naidamar

What is in todays Bible was determined by the Council of Nicea in the year 325. It is probable it had not been accepted by Christians outside Catholicism until centuries later.

So I agree that the Injil was retained until it was fully replaced by the Catholic Bible determined by the Council of Nicea. Which is today's bible with the exception of the KJV which removed 7 books that the council approved.

I can see no historical evidence that there was any change to the Bible canon at the Council of Nicea in 325. Please can you provide the source for this information?

**Hiroshi** · 01-20-2011

Originally Posted by Yahya Sulaiman

Hiroshi, you are missing the forest for the trees. There are a ton of alternate verses out there disagreeing over designations and statements most Christians consider a reference to Jesus's (P) divinity. This doesn't bother you? It's proof that, contrary to what you said before, the text is corrupted, and over some very important issues. Nor are those the only example I could give you.

Yes it does bother me. And I believe that we should take a keen interest in such matters in order to gain an accurate understanding of the Bible.

The corruption that you speak of is in reality a tiny percentage of the whole. It doesn't make a vast difference to the Bible's overall message. I don't know of any variation in the text that causes uncertainty about a matter of doctrine.

**Hiroshi** · 01-20-2011

Originally Posted by naidamar

everyone knows that there is no such thing as original writings of bible.

You are right, of course. We do not have the original writings with us today.

Originally Posted by naidamar

So, which ones are those translators?
do christians have some standards?
Or is bible free to be interpreted based on every scribes' pre-conceived doctrines and beliefs?
Does this mean also that there is high possibility that the early translators got it wrong, say from the original gospel of jesus (which should be in hebrew or aramaic) to koine greek?

Take as an example Revelation 3:14 which calls Jesus: “the beginning [Greek: “arche”] of the of the creation of God” (KJV). A similar expression occurs at John 2:11 “This beginning [Greek: “arche”] of miracles did Jesus in Cana of Galilee”.

In the first verse “arche” means that Jesus is the first creation of God just as in the second verse the reference is to the first miracle of Jesus.

Of course, Trinitarians do not believe that Jesus is a created being and so they try to hide the meaning of Revelation 3:14 in many translations:

“the ruler of God’s creation” (New International Version)
“the Origin and Beginning and Author of God's creation” (Amplified Bible)
“the source of God's creation” (Contemporary English Version)
“the ruler of all God has made” (New Century Version)
“the ruler of God’s creation” (Common English Bible)
“the source of God’s creation” (GOD’S WORD Translation)
“the chief of the creation of God” (Young’s Literal Translation)

In the NT, with one exception, the word for “ruler” is “archon” (as at Revelation 1:5) not “arche”. And the sense of “origin” doesn’t appear anywhere in the NT but rather is used in Greek philosophical writings. In any case, other scriptures like 1 Corinthians 8:6 state that the creation is through Jesus but from the God the Father. So Jesus is clearly not the source and origin of creation, the Father is.

A careful examination and study of God’s word is rewarding and reveals many man-made doctrines such as the Trinity to be false.

**gmcbroom** · 01-20-2011

Hirosi,
The revelation reference your referring to 3:14. I don't see the problem? Is it where it's says the source of God's creation? I don't have an issue with the passage. It's a mystery and as such unexplainable.

Were you baptised in the name of the Father only? I ask because in the Didache translation I'm reading Chapters 7:1-7:4 all refer to baptizing in the name of the Father,and of the Son, and of the Holy spirit.

May I ask you a personal question? As a Unitarian how were you baptized? If it calls for a trinitarian baptism from the very beginning Then that should impy a trinitarian belief. After all, if Jesus were just a prophet then adding him into the baptism would be extrememly narcissistic not to mention blasmephemous.